(29 Dec 2014, 6:13 pm)Greg in Weardale wrote Cutting the frequency from 10 min to 12 min means one less bus per hour hence more passengers per bus so there will be more dwell time at stops thus the timetable will need longer end to end. It was not honest for GNE to say the 27 and 56 changes were to make the service more reliable when in fact they were also, and probably mainly, to save money. If you say passengers won't notice the difference between a 10 and a 12 minute frequency, then would they notice if it went down to 15?
If I were running a bus company then I'd obviously want more passengers per bus.
It may come as a surprise to some but I'm not against cutting high-frequency services if passenger numbers are relatively low and reliability can be ostensibly improved. If buses are reportedly running around in twos and threes, and services are playing hop-scotch with each other at bus-stops along the route, it is pointless trying to maintain the frequency. It would be more expedient to save money by reducing the PVR and allowing more journey time. If buses are playing hop-scotch at bus-stops then the 'dwell-time' is going to be the same at any one bus-stop as one bus stops to pick up all the passengers while the others pass.
I'm not privy as to the reason why GNE decided to reduce the frequencies of services 27 and 56. Maybe there was some underlying directive to reduce costs wherever necessary, maybe the routes in question don't justify a ten-minute frequency outside of peak hours, or maybe it was down to reliability. Personally, I think very few routes in Tyne and Wear require a ten or even twelve minute frequency.